John,
How many versions do you keep and how does reclamation happen, if it
does ? We are interested in setting up something like this and would like
to know more of the pros and cons. We've seen prior conversations about
issues on reclamation.
Any and all information would be appreciated.
thanks,
mark
-----Original Message-----
From: John Underdown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 8:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Using Disk in place of tapes for copy pools
Pat,
We been using a all disk backuppool for a number of years now. It's grown to
3TB (4 expansion cabinets with 14 73GB drives each and each set to raid 5),
we just keep adding disk expansion to server as we need more storage. We use
a small LTO library for the copypool. We backup 360 servers (80 to 100 GB
total) nightly and growing. The TSM database is 10GB sitting on raid 10 with
15K rpm drives (very fast) , i also defrag the DB monthly. This is a dream
setup and works very well, restores run in the blink of a eye. I run the TSM
server by myself as a part-time duty.
I would suggest just growing your disks storage on your backuppool to at
least 1 TB to keep backups and restore running fast, allowing older data to
migrate to your existing tape library. Now a days disks have both a
performance and price advantage over tape.
If you have any other question please let me know.
john
Synovus
Columbus, GA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:32:20 -0400
From: "Patrick J. Kelleher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Using Disk in place of tapes for copy pools
We currently back up 500 GIG a night using an ATL 6000 tape library. Before
replacing Tape Library we would like to research the possibility of using
Disk in place of tape for all backups.
Anyone doing this, especially on a large scale as we have 20 terabytes in
Tape Library.
------------------------------
